Slashdot Mirror


Making Sense of Mismatched Certificates?

Ropati writes "I bank with capitalone.com. Recently I went to log in to my credit card account, and my browser reported that the site certificate didn't match the web site I was on. [Expletive.] I'm wondering if I am getting a poisoned DNS URL. I have to log in and do my banking, so I accept the mismatched certificate. The banking site is complete, my transactions are listed but that doesn't mean there isn't a man in the middle attack here. I am still curious how much I have exposed my banking assets." Read on for more, and offer advice on how to interpret what sounds like a flaky response from the bank.

Ropati continues "On the Capital One login page, there is a Verisign link on the page to check that the website is suppose to match. So I click on the verification icon and I am rewarded with a link to Verisign. They report that this web site certificate is for onlinebanking.capitalone.com not the servicing.capitalone.com where I log in. Is this the mismatch my browser reported. I know nothing about certificates.

I call Capital One and ask them to fix the problem. If this was a browser issue on my part, then the Verisign link should match. The tech support supervisor, Joe — XRT413, said he couldn't do anything about it and he couldn't escalate the problem to someone who could.

So my questions are: Are the certificates a mismatch or is my browser bellyaching for nothing? Is the certificate mismatch a security hazard? If someone poisoned my local DNS routers would it be obvious in the URL? How would I prevent such a thing? If everything was working correctly, would the certificate alert me to DNS poisoning, or is this just cosmetic security?"

77 of 322 comments (clear)

  1. Not nothing. by mnslinky · · Score: 5, Informative

    This is a misconfiguration on their end. EV certificates, the ones that turn your address bar green and coax turtles into doing happy dances, are really expensive. It's my guess that they've either reused a certificate on another system, or one of their developers made a mistake in how the site and server cluster is configured. It's certainly something to complain about.

    If you're ever in doubt about the validity of the certificate or security of a transaction, however, DON'T DO IT!. This goes for standing at an ATM in a shady neighborhood or doing business online.

    1. Re:Not nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Dude, post your login details and I'll check it out for you.

    2. Re:Not nothing. by badasscat · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Well, but both certificates were for capitalone.com subdomains. In this case, I wouldn't worry too much about it. I'd complain, but it's more of an annoyance than a security risk.

      I'd worry a lot more if one certificate was for capitalone.com and the other for capone.com or capitolone.com or capital1.com or something like that. Then you've got a problem.

    3. Re:Not nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      I don't know why anyone has their money in large banks anymore. Move it to a local credit union and let those large bank fuckers die out. "Too big to fail" my ass. They haven't been paying FDIC for the last 10 years since "it wasn't necessary".

    4. Re:Not nothing. by Chyeld · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Bitch, don't excuse. The whole point of this exercise was to allow the customer use the site without putting their info in danger and in a manner that doesn't require having a degree in "teh internets" to get through.

      It should never be the customer's responsibilty to bring a maginfying glass to the certificate and manually verify that these were just subdomain mismatches and not some clever capitalone.com vs capitlone.com spelling that means to look correct to someone just scanning the screen. That is a security risk, whether or not it is currently exposing your info, it's training you to expect that sort of problem and to ignore it the same way people ignore the dialog boxes XP and VISTA pop up on errors.

    5. Re:Not nothing. by argiedot · · Score: 4, Insightful

      If you're ever in doubt about the validity of the certificate or security of a transaction, however, DON'T DO IT!

      Can't agree more. See this example of a MITM attack.

    6. Re:Not nothing. by SatanicPuppy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yep yep. Buying a new cert for every subdomain is wildly expensive, so these sorts of errors happen reasonably often.

      In a lot of cases the subdomain may be separated from the main domain only for possible load balancing issues, so it's doubly not worth getting a specific cert for a subdomain which may never take off.

      In the end it's a problem because the consumer gets used to accepting bad certs as a matter of course, and that leads to people accepting "capitolone.com" instead of "capitalone.com". Basically the registrars need to be pimp slapped a bit: certificate registration shouldn't cost anywhere near what it does, certificates should be purchasable for whole domains, etc.

      --
      ad logicam Claiming a proposition is false because it was presented as the conclusion of a fallacious argument.
    7. Re:Not nothing. by Lord+Ender · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Exactly. When you proceed despite an SSL error, you most likely are falling victim to a screw-up on the bank's end, but you are possible falling victim to a MITM attack. There is no way for you to know conclusively.

      That's really the end of the discussion.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    8. Re:Not nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, it's good to worry any time there is a mismatch. It can be easy to fake legitimate looking URL's using UNICODE characters and such.

      Consider something that looks like like:
      https://onlinebanking.capitalone.com/login/.tsdk.cn?login

      The whole first part could be the host name: "onlinebanking.capitalone.com/login/" and the domain is actually "tsdk.cn". This would be using the UNICODE symbol for mathematical division that looks like a forward slash. It looks like a capitalone.com domain even though you're going through some scammer site. Marlinspike talked about this exact attack at Blackhat 09.

    9. Re:Not nothing. by Erioll · · Score: 2, Interesting

      This will become a greater issue as unicode domain names come into prominence. I believe that right now while Firefox "decodes" any unicode so that the characters look like the underlying hex (or something) so that a non-english character can NOT be confused for a real one.

      For instance in certain fonts lowercase "L" (l) looks EXACTLY like an uppercase "i" (I). In others it doesn't. Now in your example that can't happen, but what about www.travelocity.com or www.traveIocity.com? (I used a capital "i" in the second) You can see how this can be an issue. It gets worse with other character sets that ARE different characters, but again look identical, thus bypassing any automatic "lowercase" that a browser probably does.

      If you see a mismatch, unless the banking needs to be done in less time than it takes you to get to an actual local branch, do NOT do it.

    10. Re:Not nothing. by alta · · Score: 2, Funny

      No no no, at godaddy they're only 29.95!!!! Only the highest quality stuff for the bank!

      --
      Do not meddle in the affairs of sysadmins, for they are subtle, and quick to anger.
    11. Re:Not nothing. by Firehed · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That also takes about six seconds of the company's time to fix by adding two lines to an .htaccess file. A problem that simple should never require the customer to wonder if their financial data is in harm's way.

      --
      How are sites slashdotted when nobody reads TFAs?
    12. Re:Not nothing. by postbigbang · · Score: 5, Insightful

      You find it amusing. I find it reason to sack your sorry ass.

      Security is a chain of referential components designed (and hacked at constantly) in the attempt to ensure safety. Civilians don't know a bad certificate from a live hand grenade, and both can blow up in their face. Security is a state of mind-- if you have one. Lotsa people don't and rely on cogent web developers for their safety.

      --
      ---- Teach Peace. It's Cheaper Than War.
    13. Re:Not nothing. by s0abas · · Score: 3, Funny

      Wait, did you just call _yourself_ a Trollfag?

    14. Re:Not nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Also, lets not forget that a while back some children hacked into Comcast's DNS registrar with nothing more than an unsophisticated Social Engineering ploy.

      If the capitalone domain registration ever became compromised, 'hijackeddomain.capitalone.com' would have the same 'root' domain as capitalone.com, but could be pointed at a hackers server in timbuktu.

      Just because the domain is 'capitalone.com' does not necessarily mean that everything set up with a vanity off of it is hosted, owned, or operated by capitalone (or more importantly; that they're not owned and operated by someone who possesses malicious intent, be it a disgruntled capitalone employee or otherwise).

      Last, the aforementioned domain registration social engineering end-around could theoretically be pulled to obtain a legitimate SSL Certificate. Maybe not specifically by targeting Verisign (at least, not as easily as other companies, I'd venture a guess), but any number of the other more generic and less valuable companies like GeoTrust are all plausible to target with this sort of ploy.

    15. Re:Not nothing. by tkw954 · · Score: 4, Funny

      Dude, post your login details and I'll check it out for you.

      My login details are username:tkw954 password:*********

      Hey that's weird. Slashdot must automatically replace your pw with stars.

    16. Re:Not nothing. by Daimanta · · Score: 5, Funny

      You can hunter2 my hunter2ing hunter2. You can't see hunter2!

      --
      Knowledge is power. Knowledge shared is power lost.
    17. Re:Not nothing. by encoderer · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There's a quadrillion dollars in Derivatives. (That's not a hyperbole).

      Many large banks hold over a trillion dollars in Credit Default Swaps.

      All CDS contracts have a universal default provision.

      As much as it pains us all, these banks really are too big to fail. That needs to be fixed. We simply cannot have corporations that are so essential that we taxpayers must "insure" them. But that's tomorrow's fight. Today we just need to survive.

    18. Re:Not nothing. by GoRK · · Score: 4, Informative

      No CA is (currently) issuing wildcard EV certs. I personally understand the convenience of the wildcard cert, but I do also accept and support the practice of disallowing wildcards in high security applications.

      EV certificates are available with multiple Subject Alternative Names, though so the whole "dropped www." or a couple of virtual shouldn't be a big deal if things are done correctly. Unfortunately they aren't and some sites (paypal) that are using EV SSL certs don't even bother with this simple feature.

      The correct failsafe implementation which will always result in a no-prompt situation is to ensure that you only deploy EV certificates on an IP addresses that have only one DNS name. You then deploy a frontend redirection server on a second IP using a wildcard SSL cert that occupies the alternative dns names for the namespace of the original app. This server will pass cert checks more easily and then redirect to the EV server with its specific dns name which will then show the green bar. Any existing deep links to the application on an incorrect DNS name will be handled correctly and any direct references will work in the future. There are of course implications for securing said redirection proxy, but they aren't really that hard to overcome.

    19. Re:Not nothing. by Ambiguous+Puzuma · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Perhaps it would help--for some of us, at least--if browsers indicated how many sections of the domain matched (with the comparison performed from right to left)? After all, the browser won't be fooled by such trickery.

      In the submitter's case:
      Cert: onlinebanking.capitalone.com
      Site: servicing.capitalone.com
      2 sections match, this is probably safe (but proceed cautiously)

      In the parent's case:
      Cert: onlinebanking.capitalone.com
      Site: onlinebanking.capitalone.com/login/.tsdk.cn
      Danger! 0 sections match. This is probably not safe!

      (Pretend that the bolded portions are also highlighted in bright red, or something.)

    20. Re:Not nothing. by mrcaseyj · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is why I train new users to look for the domain name at the bottom right of the status bar next to the lock in Firefox, because it's too hard to explain to a beginner how to parse an https URL and the browser takes care of all the tricks in extracting the domain name that you're connecting to.

      Well, it's good to worry any time there is a mismatch. It can be easy to fake legitimate looking URL's using UNICODE characters and such.

      Consider something that looks like like:
      https://onlinebanking.capitalone.com/login/.tsdk.cn?login

      The whole first part could be the host name: "onlinebanking.capitalone.com/login/" and the domain is actually "tsdk.cn". This would be using the UNICODE symbol for mathematical division that looks like a forward slash. It looks like a capitalone.com domain even though you're going through some scammer site. Marlinspike talked about this exact attack at Blackhat 09.

    21. Re:Not nothing. by Eric+in+SF · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Everyone is saying this and it really does make sense. Except. I don't trust the American system to fix this once the "sky is falling" danger is passed. I really don't.

    22. Re:Not nothing. by noidentity · · Score: 3, Funny

      You can ********* my *********ing *********. You can't see *********!

      That's odd, it shows a different number of stars than your password really is. Guess that's to avoid giving even its length away. Clever!

    23. Re:Not nothing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As much as it pains us all, these banks really are too big to fail

      These banks really are too big for the system of capital to let them fail, which would underline the innate faults of that system. That we should insure them with no tangible benefit to us is a farce - Let them fail.

    24. Re:Not nothing. by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 2

      That's not a reason to fire your web developer. That is a reason to fire your IT team. Big difference.

    25. Re:Not nothing. by FiniteElementalist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Well, one alternative is to take an axe to these derivative contracts, and make it so they are redeemable for their original purchase price (or with a bit of a premium for time cost and whatnot). I thought about this possibility a while back, but it seems to be picking up some steam in more mainstream financial circles (I read an article about it recently in Barron's), and supposedly similar contract alteration was done in response to the Dutch Tulip bubble in the 1600s.

      It might not be a better choice than propping up the banks and waiting it out, but eventually they are going to need to put an end to these things. The deregulated shadow market for them was and is complete madness. It's not all that much dumber than making Ponzi schemes, naked short selling, or insurance fraud legal.

      In any case, if there is a situation where anything approaching the quadrillion or a slightly lesser number of trillions of dollars of the derivatives need to be exercised they will be completely worthless. Worthless either because the system will completely collapse and no one will honor them, or worthless because they will be devalued by hyperinflation. There's not enough money currently in existence to cover those positions, so those are pretty much the options.

    26. Re:Not nothing. by DamnStupidElf · · Score: 2, Insightful

      As much as it pains us all, these banks really are too big to fail.

      There's a quadrillion *pretend* dollars in derivatives; that's the entire point. No one owns the money they think they do on paper. It doesn't exist anywhere in any tangible good. It was an IOU written to investors that could never be paid. The economy is actually poorer than most people think. The money you invested is *gone*. It was spent by rich people and people who got overvalued loans on their home and spent the difference, or who sold their shares in stocks before the crash. That's the reality that people need to understand.

      The way to fix it, basically, is massive socialism to carry people through the hard times of losing most of their retirement, their houses, and their jobs. We can move back to a more capitalist system in the future if it ever looks like a good idea.

    27. Re:Not nothing. by bugi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The way to fix it, basically, is massive socialism to carry people through the hard times of losing most of their retirement, their houses, and their jobs. We can move back to a more capitalist system in the future if it ever looks like a good idea.

      Or simply prosecute for fraud.

      They were providing securities with money they didn't have -- how else but fraud can one interpret that that they never intended to pay out regardless of circumstance?

    28. Re:Not nothing. by quanticle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Insuring them may present no tangible benefits to you, but letting them fail is certainly going to present tangible harm. Example: When Lehman Brothers failed unexpectedly, many money market funds were adversely affected. These funds then sold their other assets into the corporate bond market, flooding it and essentially shutting it down. Because the market was shut down, many large corporations were faced with the probability of not being able to make payroll, as they were unable to get cash from their primary source of short term loans. Such an event would have undoubtably affected thousands (perhaps millions) if the Federal Reserve had not stepped in and purchased mass quantities of commercial bonds to restore order.

      I agree that it would be best if the present situation had not arisen, and if regulators had put in more stringent controls ahead of time. However, as the grandparent poster points out, letting the current system of banks and financial institutions fail rapidly and messily would cause more harm than good. We need to insure these banks on a temporary basis while we wind down their obligations and ensure that other parties will not be unduly harmed by their failures. Then we let them fail, when their failure can cause no harm to the rest of us.

      --
      We all know what to do, but we don't know how to get re-elected once we have done it
    29. Re:Not nothing. by TheNarrator · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The funny thing is is that people think the guys getting screwed are the homeowners who got to live in a home they never would have been able to afford in normal times.

      The people who got screwed are all the foreigners that bought these assets thinking their money was safe AAA rated stuff. Now they are being told that they bought a bunch of worthless garbage.

      The real problem now is that they have caused an incalculable amount of damage to the reputation of our financial system as being a safe place to invest money. The government has to bail all these people out to show that they will stand behind all these too big to fail crooks and make good on their lies in order to maintain confidence.

    30. Re:Not nothing. by aynoknman · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "Too big to fail" my ass.

      There is still hope. They are rapidly becoming small enough to fail.

      --
      We need a "+1 -- nice sig" moderation.
    31. Re:Not nothing. by NateTech · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually forebearance and big penalties later -- is another option. That or Nationalization for a temporary period to get investigators in, clean them up, and hand them back to different leadership and shareholders.

      Maybe if the current shareholders take a hit, they'll learn to do proper oversight of the Board of Directors "next time"...

      There's LOTS more options than "failure". The issue right now is in the government being CONSISTENT about how they're going about it. One bank allowed to fail, another propped up with TARP, another propped up with "stimulus"...

      No wonder the market doesn't trust it. No one knows how they're picking the winners and losers, or if it's being done for political gain or they're just really bad at it.

      Bernanke may have figured it out finally. Geitner is completely clueless. We'll see...

      --
      +++OK ATH
    32. Re:Not nothing. by supernova_hq · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Oooh, so close! the parent said "domain.com" not "https://domain.com. Thus you would be entering an http site (by default). Your .htaccess would then redirect to "https://www.domain.com".

      If he typed in "http://domain.com", then yes, you would be correct.

    33. Re:Not nothing. by UnderCoverPenguin · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I don't know why anyone has their money in large banks anymore. Move it to a local credit union and let those large bank fuckers die out.

      If you check your routing numbers, you might just find that those local credit unions, and other local banks, are clients of the "big banks". My credit union is/was a client of Wamu.

      --
      Don't try to out wierd me, three-eyes. I get stranger things than you, free with my breakfast cereal. --Zaphod Beeblebr
  2. No by Romancer · · Score: 4, Funny

    It's all a scam and we're all laughing at you. While spending your money. Thanks for the good times.

    --


    ) Human Kind Vs Human Creation
    ) It'd be interesting to see how many humans would survive to serve us.
  3. Answers by girlintraining · · Score: 4, Informative

    Hello, IT, have you tried turning it off and back on again?
    Ah... another tech support call. Sure, what's the problem?

    Are the certificates a mismatch or is my browser bellyaching for nothing?

    Yes. And maybe yes too.

    Is the certificate mismatch a security hazard?

    Common sense would suggest it wouldn't be in a big popup dialog labeled "WARNING" if it wasn't.

    If someone poisoned my local DNS routers would it be obvious in the URL?

    No.

    How would I prevent such a thing?

    Stop clicking "Okay" or "Yes" to every security warning you don't understand.

    If everything was working correctly, would the certificate alert me to DNS poisoning, or is this just cosmetic security?

    If the certificate isn't properly signed, a warning like the one you were presented with should throw a dialog box in the web browser.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Answers by owlstead · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "If the certificate isn't properly signed, a warning like the one you were presented with should throw a dialog box in the web browser."

      *Nothing* from a web site should throw a dialog in a web browser. Dialogs are annoying things that block your entire application. They make it all to easy to create denial of service attacks (just keep throwing dialog boxes). They are also easy to click away by mistake (just hitting enter in an entirely different application seems to do it).

      I love the way FF3 shows you that something is wrong with the certificate. The page is very clear and the user only gets a dialog box after clicking on a button himself. The same with remembering passwords, the bar on the top is much better than a dialog.

      It would be great if FF3 became entirely dialog free. I don't think it is already the case, but they are definitely working on it. The one for extensions is still there, but at least you cannot just click it away since it waits 3 seconds for the Install button to become available.

      IMHO, dialog boxes (especially "modal" ones, the ones you /have/ to click away) are a useful tool, but they are used in way too many occasions.

  4. It's not like they're the only bank, you know by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Seriously, there's a bank on every corner. Unless you have some compelling reason to stay with Capital One, open an account elsewhere. You don't even have to close your Capital One account -- save it as a backup.

    That's what I did when Bank of Texas (aka Bank of Oklahoma) added so-called "security questions". The first time I failed at answering "What was your first pet's favorite food?" (or something similarly stupid), I changed my direct deposit to put $1 a paycheck there, and move the rest to an account at a financial institution with a better understanding of Internet security.

    Speaking of financial institutions, why are you still banking at a for-profit (ha!) institution, anyway? I've got one credit union that doesn't charge an overlimit fee on my credit card, and another that's paying over 4% interest on my checking account. Why can they do that? Because they didn't take stupid risks 10 years ago. I should know -- they wouldn't give me a home loan. The bank that did was first in line for a taxpayer bailout.

    --
    Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  5. Re:Looks fine to me by canuck08 · · Score: 5, Informative

    Seconded. The certificate is correct.
    I don't know what that verisign link is all about but it is useless.
    You certainly cannot trust information within a web page to verify the identity of the server.

    Click on the the little 'lock' icon on the bottom right corner of your browser to inspect the certificate.

  6. A few things about SSL by einhverfr · · Score: 5, Interesting

    The first thing to note is that SSL covers the host-to-host connection and is ignorant of higher-level protocols. There are a couple of things which can cause SSL mismatches:

    1) SSL cert is set up to one hostname that the machine services, but site is on another. The SSL negotiation happens prior to the host headers being processed. This could be solved by browser controls (i.e. do a rDNS lookup on the cert's host and make sure it matches the IP you are connecting to), but this ends up causing other, more serious issues, because different sites on the same server could be controlled by different parties. Hence if you have a shopping cart, I could re-use your cert on my shared site on the same box, spoof your page, and steel credit card numbers. So the browser behavior is correct.

    2) The SSL cert could have been accidently re-used (unlikely).

    My general rule is that if the hostname's TLD matches with the cert (capitalone.com), but the most host-specific portion does not (servicing vs online banking), this is reasonably (though not completely) safe to ignore. Revoked certs should ALWAYS be treated with suspicion because you don't know why it was revoked. Expired certs.... Well, it depends. There are other things that can cause certs to be improperly shown as expired so that demands more careful consideration.

    --

    LedgerSMB: Open source Accounting/ERP
    1. Re:A few things about SSL by BigBuckHunter · · Score: 2, Informative

      SSL cert is set up to one hostname

      The parent is for all intensive purposes is correct. Class 3 SSL certificates are assigned to a common name (foo.com). Unless the certificate contains a wild-card, it ill not work for bar.foo.com. It will however work for foo.com/bar.

      It sounds like the bank in question has a Class 3 for CN=bank.com and their webapp is located at online.bank.com. The browser caught the mismatch and throws a warning.

      Please alert the webmaster of the institution with a full description of the error.It's easy to resolve on their end (they have to gen a new csr and order a new certificate).

      BBH

  7. Re:Looks fine to me by JWSmythe · · Score: 4, Interesting

        Exactly. They were stupid. They gave a server an alias, and didn't realize that it will throw an error to the clients. It probably worked fine in their dev environment though, where they probably accepted the wrong cert and saved the exception because they got tired of clicking the link. :)

        Being that he ignored the error, didn't view the cert to see what it was really assigned for (and continued on to give his login information), it proves that most users don't really care, and will provide their security credentials regardless if they've been warned that there is a problem or not. The cert could have been for bad_haxor_inc.ru, but since he didn't look, he doesn't know.

        We have to assume that it's a mixup with the servicing.capitalone.com and onlinebanking.capitalone.com hosts, but we don't know.

        Why didn't they just buy a wildcard cert? They're so much easier to work with. :)

    --
    Serious? Seriousness is well above my pay grade.
  8. Pure genius! Say the quiet part loud! by synthesizerpatel · · Score: 5, Funny

    This reminds me of an story. A friend and I were moving a heavy couch and at an inopportune time he got flustered and said 'Hold on, we need to put this down and take a break'. We did, finished moving it later and that was that.

    About 6 months later out of the blue he explained to me that he had to put the couch down because the apparently strained a bit too hard and pooped his pants.

    I have no idea why he told me, much less told me 6 months later. He was kind of a weird guy.

    The moral of this story is:

    If you do something embarassing or stupid and privately get away with it, don't tell anyone.

  9. significant spaces by poot_rootbeer · · Score: 3, Funny

    What is "Cap It Alone"?

    Doesn't sound like a website I'd entrust my financial information to...

  10. Doesn't surprise me... by Jason+Levine · · Score: 5, Informative

    An ID Thief opened a Capital One account in my name. They had my name, address, SSN, and DOB, but got my mother's maiden name wrong. Capital One approved the card anyway. Then, when the thief immediately changed the address (from mine to another address), before even activating the card, it didn't raise any red flags in their systems. Then, when the thief tried to get a $5,000 cash advance on the card (still not activated), it didn't raise any red flags in their systems (though they denied the advance). Then, when I called them, they refused to give me any information on the theory that I could "go and shoot the guy and they would be liable." Instead, I had to have a police officer call a special "cops number." The police officer called that number and got a recording which apparently no one ever returned phone calls from. At every step of the way, Capital One seemed to be going out of its way to protect itself *from* me and my ID Theft investigation instead of caring about the fact that it was an accessory to ID theft. Needless to say, I won't ever do business with Capital One again.

    --
    My sci-fi novel, Ghost Thief, is now available from Amazon.com.
    1. Re:Doesn't surprise me... by RobertB-DC · · Score: 4, Informative

      I was going to reply with my own tales of Capital One woe, the $500 credit line with the $50 overlimit fees, the annual fee they charged after I cancelled, the continuing flood of "offers" (with worse and worse fine print). But I can't, because I'm laughing too hard at the banner ad at the top of the page.

      Capital One® Credit Cards
      Competitive Rates. More Rewards. Apply Now for No Hassle Cards.
      www.CapitalOne.com

      I've run-not-walked from Capital One ever since my one and only experience with them, and if this situation (and their bannermania) is any indication, everyone else should too.

      --
      Stressed? Me? Of course not. Stress is what a rubber band feels before it breaks, silly.
  11. Complaining is kind of pointless. by klubar · · Score: 3, Insightful

    You're end up in some call center and the agent will have no clue what you're talking about -- they will recommend clearing cookies, restarting the browser (and maybe switch to IE). The message will never get up the food chain. The only real way to get the message is to close your account and switch to a bank that takes sucurity seriously.

    1. Re:Complaining is kind of pointless. by irotsoma · · Score: 5, Interesting

      WARNING: RANT...

      I hate to say it, but I agree that you'll never get anything fixed by a call center. I've worked in call centers and the people who work there generally have no way to speak to anyone who can fix a problem, even in a "tech support" call center. Also, since they either get paid per call, or at least get docked pay if they aren't actively answering incoming calls, then they have no incentive to fix anything. In fact, they have a big disincentive against fixing anything since it will take away from their pay check and they likely hate the company too much to do it on their own time.

      Also, I've been on the other side doing development and it's a similar problem there. It's very easy to make a simple typo or other mistake and never know the difference. No one in the call center ever tells you that the customer is having a problem, so you don't know that something needs to be fixed. So even though it might be a 1 minute fix for you, you'll never know that it needs to be done. There was a bug in this one software that had been there for 3 years, and the workarounds were even in the documentation to train new call center employees. Once a developer finally got it, it took seconds to fix. The customers suffered for 3 years for a few seconds of someone's time. Now I realize you can't fix every bug, all the time, but if the right people don't know about it, then it will never get fixed.

      The real problem, IMHO, is that large companies treat their support/customer service departments like they are a drain on the company rather than a way to increase your reputation, thus outsourcing, low pay, strict rules, etc.

      Because of this I prefer to do business with smaller companies or, even better, in person. If you're a "real person" standing in line at a bank, the teller is more likely to fix a problem than if you're just a number on a screen and a squeaky voice on a phone. But in-person is so inconvenient in this world of constant multitasking.

    2. Re:Complaining is kind of pointless. by Dan667 · · Score: 2, Interesting

      As a developer I understand that people typically don't report bugs upstream so I generally put metrics and logs into most code so I can look for broken stuff myself. I would say bugs from logs vs people is about 20 to 1 conservatively. Many people will just stop using the tool altogether even if it is painful rather than report the bug. I have also noticed that as the tool matures if you keep working the features/bugs there is some threshold where it works well and then people will start reporting bugs. Personal observation, not based on data.

    3. Re:Complaining is kind of pointless. by John_Sauter · · Score: 2, Interesting

      ...I've been on the other side doing development and it's a similar problem there. It's very easy to make a simple typo or other mistake and never know the difference. No one in the call center ever tells you that the customer is having a problem, so you don't know that something needs to be fixed....

      I ran into this problem when I worked for Digital Equipment Corporation, and came up with a solution. I was the one from our software development group who went to Colorado Springs to train the telephone support troops. I developed a rapport with them, and they allowed me read-only access to their call logs for the product. I would pass bug reports to the rest of the development group. In addition, I was able to provide feedback to the support people about incorrect or incomplete responses to customers.

  12. Browser issue by gr8_phk · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Web browsers should not allow access to sites with messed up security. If all browsers errored out, sites like this would be unusable and would get fixed. Putting up a warning that the user learns to ignore is just crying wolf. People learn to ignore such things - so why implement them at all?

  13. Banks? Seriously? by NineNine · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I don't really understand why any individual with regular "banking" needs would use a bank today. Credit unions are non-profit, and generally, because of their structure, are run much better than banks are. My credit union has been impacted 0% by this banking mess stuff. I'm earning 4% on my PERSONAL CHECKING account, and not paying any fees. I also have all of my business accounts, and my mortgage with my local credit union.

    Credit Unions: Like banks, but cheaper, non-profit, less corrupt, no over-paid executives, and not out to screw you over.

  14. Subdomain certs by ravenspear · · Score: 2, Insightful

    certificates should be purchasable for whole domains

    They are. You don't have to buy a new cert for every subdomain. If you have a lot of subdomains to secure the best solution is to get a wildcard certificate.

    1. Re:Subdomain certs by kyouteki · · Score: 4, Informative

      Due to security concerns (just like the OP is expressing,) you can't get a Wildcard EV certificate.

      --
      A slashdotter who didn't build his own computer is like a Jedi who didn't build his own lightsaber.
    2. Re:Subdomain certs by XorNand · · Score: 2, Informative

      Maintaining the PKE infrastructure, the technical support staffing costs, plus the likely attrition of customers who "just can't get their online banking to work right" would dwarf any savings that they'd see from not just buying a certificate.

      --
      Entrepreneur : (noun), French for "unemployed"
    3. Re:Subdomain certs by sgbett · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Its obscurity 2.0 - Security through poverty.

      --
      Invaders must die
  15. The obvious solution... by pak9rabid · · Score: 2, Insightful

    DO NOT continue banking online, and call them to let them know of the problem. Continue banking over the phone or in person (I know..it's a pain in the ass compared to doing it online, but it's nothing compared to having to deal with identity theft).

  16. Right conclusion, wrong procedure by Slipped_Disk · · Score: 2, Informative

    OK, your bank screwed the pooch and you should complain - LOUDLY - until it's fixed. You should also look for a bank that understands basic internet/web concepts like "SSL cert's CN must match DNS hostname" -- I fear for the rest of their infrastructure.

    That said, you were logging into your bank, which presumably holds a large percentage of your cash assets, you received a SSL error and you continued the transaction?
    You deserve to have your account cleaned out for reckless disregard for the security of your financial information. Go to a brick-and-mortar bank, or call them on the telephone (*gasp*) if your banking is so urgent.

    --
    /~mikeg
    1. Re:Right conclusion, wrong procedure by geekoid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "You deserve to have your account cleaned out for reckless disregard for the security of your financial information. "

      no no NO. No one deserves that, stop pandering the insurance companies line.

      If you car is not locked, you don't deserve to have it robber, if you leave a window to your house, you do not deserve to be robbed. if you windows are easily breakable, you do not deserve to be robbed. If you were a short skirt, you do not deserve to be raped.
      You deserve to live in a world where you don't have to lock everything.

      --
      The Kruger Dunning explains most post on /. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dunning%E2%80%93Kruger_effect
  17. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 2

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  18. Re:It worked for me by icydog · · Score: 2, Informative

    It also works for me. I bank with Capital One, and in fact the link in the summary is the exact link I have stored in my bookmarks. I have never had certificate trouble with that link. I'd watch that account closely if I were you, and perhaps change your passwords if you use the same password elsewhere.

  19. Re:Looks fine to me by kalirion · · Score: 3, Informative

    Similar thing happens whenever I try to log into my virginmobile account. https://virginmobileusa.com/ has a certificate for www.virginmobileusa.com

  20. There's something very wrong here. by Animats · · Score: 4, Informative

    Something strange is going on here. Capital One's main site returns a certificate for the correct domain, but the certificate is invalid. This isn't a wrong-domain issue; the cert is bad. CN="www.capitalone.com", the dates are valid, the issuer is Verisign, but it won't validate in Firefox. Our own system, SiteTruth, which uses OpenSSL, also indicates it's no good. But neither Firefox nor OpenSSL is producing a useful error message. It looks like this certificate is either corrupted or bogus.

    The location ("L") in the cert is Glen Allen, VA. Capital One has a facility in Glen Allen, according to Google, and it looks like a huge warehouse. So that's probably their data center, at 4871 Cox Rd, Glen Allen, VA - (804) 270-4104.

    A traceroute ends at "capitalone-gw.customer.alter.net", which doesn't mean much one way or the other.

    Their stock has dropped from 55 to 12 since September 2008. If you have any money in there above the FDIC insurance limits, get it out now..

  21. IE 8 does! by wbean · · Score: 2, Informative

    It looks to me as though IE 8 does just this. The matched part of the url is in a bolder face than the rest of the address. Cool!

  22. Re:Eh ? by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Capital One IT staff: "Oh shit, we're on /."

    2nd C1 IT staff: "Oh fuck. I'll bet it's the certificate."

    *phone rings*

    "Oh shit, it's the CTO's number."

    CTO: "Why the fuck are we on slashdot's front page?"

    And presto, Capital One's certificates have been fixed.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
  23. capitalone.com by 6Yankee · · Score: 2, Funny

    What's "capping it", and why would I want to do it alone?

  24. Re:Looks fine to me by kelnos · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can't get wildcard EV certs.

    --
    Xfce: Lighter than some, heavier than others. Just right.
  25. Derivatives contracts by ShatteredArm · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Tell me now, why do we need to protect the counterparties in the derivatives contracts? Shouldn't they have been aware of the risk involved? Just look at it this way: Company A offers credit default swaps against securities to protect lenders in case of default. Company B says, "Hey, that sounds great! Small premium for such a policy!" But Company B should considering, "Hey, they only way we'll need this insurance is if there is a catastrophic collapse. But if that happens, Companies C, D, E, ..., Z are all going to be asking to be reimbursed along with us! And why should we think Company A has anywhere near enough capital to insure all of those companies in case of default?" Company B should be asking Company A, "Hey, do you even able to insure this?" And the answer would be a resounding "No" (or a bald-faced lie that would be easy to uncover).

    The simple fact is, these companies didn't even think about what would happen if AIG couldn't cover all the swaps. Because nobody could cover all those swaps. Let AIG fail. As far as the banks who are counterparties, let them go into receivership, wipe out the shareholders, and sell off their assets to pay off as many debt holders as possible. That's what the FDIC is for; maybe we should use it for something other than a moral hazard provider.

    1. Re:Derivatives contracts by ShatteredArm · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Your comparison between your fire hazard insurance and credit default swaps is weak, at best. For several reasons:

      a) You are a private individual who doesn't have time to do a detailed analysis on your insurance company's balance sheet. A very large bank, on the other hand, should know how to look at AIG's balance sheet and determine how liquid they are. They have people who know and understand finance.
      b) The type of disasters that could cause people to make claims on their fire hazard insurance cannot possibly affect the percentage of the policy holders as the type of disasters that could befall the CDS counterparties. With CDS, it's almost all or nothing, as far as people making claims, since house prices more or less move together.
      c) AIG doesn't care if they have enough capital to cover these defaults. They know they're betting the bank that prices would keep going up; nobody should assume they have enough capital. Again, they need only look at AIG's balance sheet to make that determination.

      The key here is that these banks should've known that there was no way AIG could cover all these CDS. They should've known that if housing prices decline, there would be lots of defaults. CDS became widespread out of stupidity and greed on the part of AIG and their counterparties.

  26. mod parent up!!! by reiisi · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Self-signing is the only sensible way to use certificates.

    CAs should only be used in the same way that USians use notary publics. The certificate should be treated like a notary's seal. (And priced the same.)

    But the CAs can't even behave like notaries until they get proper time stamping implemented.

    The standard itself was never debugged, and every purveyor of snake oil fudges whatever part of the standard that gets in the way of their patent formula.

    Sorry to be negative, but it gets kind of fatiguing, watching the other guy making all the money doing everything wrong. Yeah, that's part of believing in freedom, but it would help if the other believed in it enough to at least try to do it right.

    --
    Computer memory is just fancy paper, CPUs just fancy pens with fancy erasers; the 'net is just a fancy backyard fence.
  27. Here's an idea by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 3, Insightful

    If you suspect you're visiting a phishing site, try first entering the WRONG password. Since the fishing site shouldn't know your true password, it will just accept the incorrect one and store it away for the purpuse of dastardly use later on. If the site rejects the incorrect password, then accepts the true one, you know you're OK. Right?

    --
    I am not left-handed, either!
    1. Re:Here's an idea by narcc · · Score: 2, Informative

      Great for phishing sites, totally useless for man-in-the-middle attacks.

    2. Re:Here's an idea by bensafrickingenius · · Score: 2, Informative

      The first person who replied to me nailed it. My idea works for simple phishing sites, but not for man-in-the-middle sites, which are almost certainly more common these days. I guess my idea might have been worthy of the insightful mod about 5 years ago...

      --
      I am not left-handed, either!
    3. Re:Here's an idea by Taser · · Score: 2, Informative

      If you suspect you're visiting a phishing site, try first entering the WRONG password. Since the fishing site shouldn't know your true password, it will just accept the incorrect one and store it away for the purpuse of dastardly use later on. If the site rejects the incorrect password, then accepts the true one, you know you're OK. Right?

      Though the above may work in a phishing website, it's absolutely worthless in a true MITM scheme. Recall that the MITM is forwarding *your* input to the *true* website, and will give you the same results as if you had entered them yourself.

  28. Electronic Banking is Regulated: COMPLAIN by jefftp · · Score: 2, Informative

    Electronic banking is heavily regulated. If you feel your concerns are being taken seriously by the bank you need to head on over to the federal reserves website and file a complaint. The Federal Reserve will forward the complaint to the correct regulating facility and banks will respond or be fined.

    http://www.federalreserveconsumerhelp.gov/

  29. Whois Databases And One-time Passwords by Velska1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

    Whenever I run into a cert mismatch, I check the site IP (fairly straightforward in FF). Then I do a search on the IP against whois databases (ARIN, RIPE). If I see, that the IP is registered to the organization that is supposed to be serving me (and not just an IP reseller), I grant a temp exception and send an email to the staff of the service provider (the whois databases usually have that info) and tell them they've screwed up.

    For online banking, I have one-time passwords, issued by the bank (it's a two-phase process). But I've never run into a cert mismatch on a banking service yet.

    --
    Every problem has a solution that is simple, easy and wrong. Selling our Liberty for a little Security is a much too de
  30. Re:Eh ? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You are exactly correct, except it was the CEO's son who happened to be browsing /. and gave his dad a call and explained what it meant. On the plus side, the policy team (who made this particuar call) is getting their backsides roasted just now...ah, schadenfraude.